You playing strength is anecdotal evidence. And quite often going through just systematic way your thinking is more valuable than the actual end product. As it programs you subconscious decision making. You said that it is not part of your decision making but that is unlikely to be true. People do not know when subconscious decision are made as the upper layer rationalizes the decisions afterwards. https://www.relationshipscoach.co.uk/blog/research-shows-our-subconscious-mind-makes-our-decisions-for-us/
and that is not bad. Your huge effort to become strong player did program you intuitive decision making to such degree that it is worth listening. I still would doubt that your theory is any better than some competing ones. As I do know people who are stronger than you and are using different framework. Similarity is the directed and intentional search of truth. Process is probably way more important the result. Obviousl I canno tprove my point as my evidence is anecdotal PP 2017-10-26 17:54 GMT+03:00 Robert Jasiek <jas...@snafu.de>: > On 26.10.2017 08:52, Petri Pitkanen wrote: > >> Unfortunately there is no proof that you principles work better than those >> form eighties. >> > > No computer-go proof. > > There is evidence in the form of my playing strength: with the principles > "from the eighties", I got to circa 1 kyu. L+D reading practice etc. made > me 3 dan. Afterwards, almost the only thing that made me stronger to 5 dan > and then further improved my understanding was the invention of my own > principles. > > My principles etc. also work for (an unknown fraction of) readers of my > books and for a high percentage of my pupils but I cannot compare what the > effect on them would have been if instead they would only have learnt the > principles "from the eighties". I do, however, know that my principles > provide me with very much more efficient means of teaching contents > compared to using the principles "from the eighties". > > The principles "from the eighties" and my principles can be compared with > each other. IMO, such a comparison is shocking: the principles "from the > eighties" are very much weaker on average and altogether convey very much > less contents. > > Nor there is any agreement that your pronciples form any >> improvement over the old ones. >> > > Only time constraints prevent me from doing an extensive comparison and so > better support formation of an agreement. > > What is missing that I doubt that you can verbalise your go understanding >> to degree that by applying those principles I could become substantially >> better player. >> > > Different players are different. So different that some players claim to > only learn from examples. Therefore, I cannot know whether you are a player > who could learn well from principles etc. > > - My reading skills would not get any better >> > > Do you say so after having learnt and invested effort in applying the > contents of Tactical Reading? > > Regardless of the possible impact of that book, a great part of reading > skill must be obtained by reading practice in games and problem solving. If > your reading is much weaker than your knowledge of go theory, then it may > be the case that almost only reading practise (plus possibly reading theory > about improving one's reading practice) can significantly improve your > strength at the moment. > > - your principles are more complex than you understand. >> > > I do not think so:) > > Much of you know is >> automated to degree that it is subconsciousness information. >> > > From ca. 10 kyu to now, especially from 3 dan to now, I have reduced the > impact of my subconscious thinking on my go decision-making and replaced it > by knowledge, reading and positional judgement based on knowledge and > reading. The still remaining subconscious thinking is small. Most of my > remaining mistakes are related to psychology or subconscious thinking, when > necessary because of explicit knowledge gaps or thinking time constraints. > > Transferring that information if hard. >> > > Transferring it from principles etc. to code - yes. > > If you can build Go bot about KGS 3/4dan strength >> > > Using my approach, I expect several manyears, which I do not have for that > purpose. > > > -- > robert jasiek > _______________________________________________ > Computer-go mailing list > Computer-go@computer-go.org > http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go >
_______________________________________________ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@computer-go.org http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
